Is Baghdad About To Fall To ISIS?

Sunni militants extended their control over parts of northern and western Iraq on Wednesday as Iraqi government forces crumbled in disarray. The militants overran the city of Tikrit, seized facilities in the strategic oil refining town of Baiji, and threatened an important Shiite shrine in Samarra as they moved south toward Baghdad.

The remarkably rapid advance of the Sunni militants, who on Tuesday seized the northern city of Mosul as Iraqi forces fled or surrendered, reflects the spillover of the Sunni insurgency in Syria and the inability of Iraq’s Shiite-led government to pacify the country after American forces departed in 2011 following eight years of war and occupation.

By late Wednesday, witnesses in Samarra, 70 miles north of Baghdad, were reporting that the militants, many of them aligned with the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS, were on the outskirts of the city. They said the militants demanded that forces loyal to the government leave the city or a sacred Shiite shrine there would be destroyed. Samarra is known for the shrine, the al-Askari Mosque, which was severely damaged in a 2006 bombing during the height of the American-led occupation. That event touched off sectarian mayhem between the country’s Sunni Arab minority and its Shiite majority.

The Times goes on to say that there may be evidence of some sort of military conspiracy to surrender to the ISIS rebels.

Witnesses reported some remarkable scenes in Tikrit, where soldiers handed over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.

That’s American weaponry. That’s American-trained soldiers, surrendering without a fight. What a humiliation to this country. What an unspeakable catastrophe for Iraq, large portions of it falling to an Islamist terrorist force so radical that even al Qaeda disowned it.

There are too many Shiite militias for Baghdad to fall, I presume. Am I wrong? It’s going to be a bloodbath no matter what. And now that ISIS is holding Turkish hostages it seized at the Mosul consulate, NATO ally Turkey could easily become involved.

“I oppose sending U.S. arms to Syria,” Fortenberry said. “The rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that include multinational terrorist organizations. Some of the most violent and successful rebel militias are linked to al-Qaeda. Sending our weapons into Syria’s chaotic warzone could help these extremists – jihadists who would be only too eager to seize American weaponry. I have responsibility for how our government spends the money of the citizens it serves. Accordingly, I introduced an amendment that will prevent armament deliveries to Syria. The potential benefits do not outweigh the severe risks.”

“The Syrian people are suffering,” Fortenberry continued. “We should continue our humanitarian aid and diplomatic assistance. Syrians do not deserve to live under Assad’s tyranny. But arming the rebels could make a bad situation worse, further destabilizing the region and causing greater humanitarian catastrophe.”

Fortenberry offered an amendment to the massive military spending bill being considered by a House committee, which would have forbidden money from being spent next year on arming Syrian rebels. The amendment failed because a majority believed that President Obama’s hands must not be tied. The $570 billion bill passed out of committee. So, on we go, making the Middle East safe for democracy.

Think about it: a decade after American troops invaded Iraq as a response to al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack — a decade that saw nearly 4,500 US deaths, tens of thousands of American casualties, 134,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, and cost the US taxpayer at least $1.7 trillion — the capital of that woebegone country is in danger of falling to Islamist berserkers who are more radical than al Qaeda. Yet the US is continuing to arm and train Syrian rebels.

As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.

But Iraq’s appeals for military assistance have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was closed when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011.

If the worst happens, and Republicans start braying about how Obama “lost” Iraq, remember that it was a war started by a Republican president, and that Obama was left behind to clean up the mess.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 81 comments

81 Responses to Is Baghdad About To Fall To ISIS?

[NFR: Well, you didn't fix it. Ours was a response to al Qaeda's attack. It was an insane response, but it was a response. We were looking for a reason to try to reshape the Middle East, and al Qaeda provided us an excuse. I don't think we were expecting permanent war. -- RD]

Can we avoid rationalizing the war? There were people predicting that Iraq could last longer than several years and lead to Sunni & Shiite civil war. Even Cheney said something similar in 1994.

Also, if you regret the support for the Iraq invasion then please add support to the Iran peace negotiations. (Even if Obama/Kerry get a good deal the Rs will not support it at this time.) Discussing Iraq regrets is fine, but possible Iran peace would real action.

Silouan Green,
They may indeed be coming for us. The State Department starved their children with a cruel embargo and denied their sick basic medicines for a decade. Reagan armed and aided Saddam only for Bush to lead him on with diplomatic duplicity and then destroy a modernizing Iraq. Bush the Second then fabricated evidence, forced Powell to perjure himself with lies about weapons and threats, invaded Iraq, and inaugurated this long and painful carnival of looting, bloodshed, and waste of our day. Iraq has been scarred and ruined by decades of American intervention in their affairs.

My point is this: We can either believe your argument that these fanatics are madmen who will kill Americans out of an irrational hatred, or we can believe, based on our history with these people, that they have reasons to be angry with us, and our interventions have everything to do with this. Iraq never suffered suicide bombings until the American invasion of 2003. American intervention has been the key element in creating the hellhole Iraq has become today, and yet this seems the exact opposite of American intentions and plans. Intentions do not matter to the Iraqis. They will hate us for the results.

History contains madmen, but it is always a mistake to consign nations to Bedlam rather than seriously consider grievances. You, sir, must consider the grievances of Iraq and the colossal, catastrophic blunders of American policy in that unhappy region.

The Maliki government should get U.S. air support in this crisis. The alternative is much worse, both for the people of Iraq and, in the long term, for the United States. Just because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the invasion was a huge strategic error, does not mean the threat of such weapons to the United States from Islamist terrorists can be discounted. Wishing these threats away will not work.

WWP, unless my history and memory are badly mistaken, Ronald Reagan’s only involvement in the Middle East was putting some Marines in Lebanon (promptly withdrawn after an attack), and some air raids over Libya.

Islam is no more inherently a warrior religion than Roman Catholicism.

Keep believing that idiocy and see how far that gets you. Do you think Nidal Hasan cared anything for the “non-establishment” clause? The Separation/Non Establishment doctrine is itself an evolution of Mark 12:17. Not only because of that is Christianity inherently different than Islam. Even without that doctrine, nothing would not stop “true believing” Christians from perpetrating all manner of terroristic acts in the name of their faith, if that’s what they believed of their faith. But they obviously don’t. The practice is different because the faith is different.

Nice of you to single out Catholics.

[NFR: I'm not saying I agree with Scott on all things related to Islam -- I'm sure I don't, as a matter of fact -- but he is absolutely correct that it's absurd to say Islam is no more a warrior religion than Catholicism. -- RD]

Darth the Iraqi Kurds are independent in all but name and seem to be pretty content with that. They’ve been really amazingly helpful to the Christian community in Iraq. I just can’t see them turning around and allying with Sunni Arab fanatics.

I spent a lot of the past few years working pretty closely with Iraqis so I’m not real excited about playing counterfactuals with this situation.

Things to ask yourself before military action: What does success look like? Can we get there from here? At what cost?

And we need to make sure we’re not fooling ourselves with the answers.

“Freedom loving Iraqis” were going to Kumbuya themselves to a peaceful transition of government after we knocked off Saddam. It was going to cost 2bn/month, it was going to take 100,000 troops to secure “a country the size of California,” and we were due to be out of Iraq 90 days after toppling Saddam.

So let me get his right, we had the chance – when notified by an allies president, to wipe out a bunch of terrorists amassing around the city for an assault with a couple “relatively” safe bomber/fighter sorties and we didn’t do it. Now everyone is high and mighty about how dumb it was to go into Iraq in the first place (many who I’m guessing, like Rod, supported it in the first place).

If this country would have stayed rallied around this fight – i.e. no democrats and republicans claiming we lost (Harry Reid), voted for it before they voted against it (Kerry) and calling the commanding general a liar (HRC) and if the Rumsfeld and the Generals would have executed something closer to “Total War”, Sherman’s March to the Sea, etc. we wouldn’t be in this spot.

It also shows we pulled out to quick – for Christ’s sake, we’re still in Germany, Japan, Korea. Failure to follow through doesn’t make the original decision to go in wrong.

In response to your update (“Or perhaps we do”), Rod, I have strongly mixed feelings about an American “hands-off” policy at this point.

As I clarified in a comment on the “O Mighty ISIS” post, I’m extraordinarily wary of reasoning by historical analogy. Usually it creates more misconception than clarity.

Nevertheless, I can’t help but be struck by some odd echoes of Vietnam circa 1975. When the U.S. withdrew in 1972, South Vietnam was in a fairly strong position. The Viet Cong never recovered from the Tet Offensive of 1968, and South Vietnam’s military forces were more competent than ever. While withdrawing ground forces, America promised material support to the South as well as aerial and naval intervention in the case of an invasion.

But as Americans increasingly decided–realized–that our Indochinese adventure was an error and a catastrophe, Congress nixed that. Meanwhile China and the Soviets continued to supply and support the North. And so South Vietnam fell in ’75.

I recognize this is a tenuous connection, but what I’m trying to get at is that this (apparent) decision not to intervene is not some sort of new wisdom. It’s very much a repetition of an old pattern: intervene, become sucked in, stabilize, withdraw, remove support, watch the state collapse.

It seems clear that our decisions in Vietnam and in Iraq were terribly misguided. Nevertheless, I can’t help but think that the U.S. has an obligation in this terrible situation–just as we had in 1973-1975–not to abandon the government we helped create.

I can’t help but think the pattern we’re falling into is the absolute worst of all possibilities, where we foolishly involve ourselves in a situation, build up a semi-stable state with potential, and then when we withdraw completely abandon that state and watch it go to hell. Choosing not to defend a state we created through intervention is not learning from our mistakes. It’s repeating them. It’s not principled non-intervention. It’s not hard-earned wisdom.

In this case it’s even worse, since after having withdrawn from Iraq we chose to participate in a neighboring country’s civil war, which has had direct and negative repercussions on the very state we created. (What would be the bad historical analogy here? If we not only abandoned South Vietnam but also supplied Pol Pot?)

he is absolutely correct that it’s absurd to say Islam is no more a warrior religion than Catholicism.

Until circa 300 AD that may well have been true, albeit Islam didn’t exist yet. What did Constantine see in the sky? What did Urban say as he launched the First Crusade (which began with a general slaughter of west European Jews)?

Mark Perkins, your criticism has merit. However, just as in Vietnam, the public became unwilling to sustain and pay for operations which would continue indefinitely, without contributing to our national security. The public has a point, since they pay the taxes, and they supply the troops, and then see what combat costs their friends and loved ones.

fruits of premature disengagement to fulfill a bad campaign promise by Obama- the US did not want a status of forces agreement with Iraq & “the White House never considered it a requirement..not …essential for stability in the region”-according to Michael Gordon NYT military correspondent in his book End Game (not exactly a neocon). The too rapid withdrawal set the stage for this disaster. You can try to blame Bush/Chimp/Hitler/Cheney all you want but the fact is the collapse is on Obama.

The US has shown its hand. The first comments and worries are NOT really about the people. They are about OIL about ARMS. There are NO IDEAS Islamic fighters have IDEAS and as much as we in US dislike them a lot of people in Iraq prefer their ideas to the visible and audible commercial intents of the US.

ISIS isn’t going to mess with the Kurds, because they have a well-trained, experienced army that knows what its fighting for and wants to win very badly. At last report, they have taken Kirkuk, which Bagdhad can’t complain about, since Bagdhad can’t hold it, and it denies ISIS a big batch of oil wells.

No, ISIS won’t take Bagdhad, because the farther south they go, the more they run into Shia divisions that have every incentive in the world to stop ISIS instead of running away, and militias that are more motivated than the co-called Iraqi army. Also, we can look forward to ISIS and the surviving Baathists coming to blows eventually, but that may be a ways down the road. It does seem that the entity known as “Iraq” is about done for. We can blame that one on the British.

Darth the Iraqi Kurds are independent in all but name and seem to be pretty content with that.

So long as the US condemns any effort to undermine the central government, of course they are. US money and political support keeps Turkey off their backs, and not seceding is the price that Uncle Sam demands.

When (not if, when) the central government implodes, however, I don’t see the Kurds turning down a regional power broker willing to cut an alternate deal to take the place of the US in telling Turkey to back off. I would prefer that broker be quasi-sane Iran rather than the Wahhabism-exporting Gulf Arabs, but the Kurds are pragmatic enough to deal with either and both.

They’ve been really amazingly helpful to the Christian community in Iraq. I just can’t see them turning around and allying with Sunni Arab fanatics.

1) Kurds are also Sunnis
2) Those “fanatic” Arab Sunnis will control the only non-Turkish pipelines to the Mediterranean, which the Kurds would like to use
3) The Kurds have been infinitely pragmatic thus far, so why should that change?
4) Racist essentialism is never accurate … not everyone in ISIS is psychotic, and any hypothetical secession state competent enough to successfully negotiate with Russia and France and China would also be competent enough to successfully negotiate Gulf Arab petrodollars and diplomatic recognition to the Kurds to cement mutual neutrality.

I spent a lot of the past few years working pretty closely with Iraqis so I’m not real excited about playing counterfactuals with this situation.

My own experience is mostly with Persian refugees from Iran, so I have a morbid fascination with all-too-real counterfactuals for everything in the region from 1953 onward. It’s a neverending horror show, and we keep willfully and unapologetically making it worse.

“Islam is no more inherently a warrior religion than Roman Catholicism.”

Yeah, because you always see guys in cassocks and miters running away from exploding buildings after cleaning off their swords from a recent beheading; video included, of course. And now I’m guessing you’ll attempt to throw out some inane “facts” about the Crusades to back up your disgusting, foolish comment. Islam is a Catholic heresy, it’s that simple. Read some Belloc.

Siarlys, they don’t have to take Baghdad’s territory, if enough of its government or security forces are coopted or intimidated by the forces at the gate. It won’t fall, but there will be even more things blowing up than usual. And Maliki may have difficulty keeping his job or his head, in more ways than one.

MM, it was stable when we handed it over, at their repeated insistence. True, it was duct taped together, but it was holding and we left the instruction manual. A vestigial American force wouldn’t have been large enough to prevent this outcome, though our air power may have dissuaded them from threatening Baghdad directly. However, see above. A larger force was unsustainable, as anyone who’s done multiple tours over there could tell you. There’s a limit to what you can do with the Army you have, if your country is politically unwilling to conscript a larger one and levy the taxes needed to replace shrinking and worn out stock of materiel. There was no political will for that. And we couldn’t very well lower recruiting standards any more than we had, nor afford to find out at exactly how many years of driving over IEDs will guarantee a nearly 100% chance of traumatic brain injury and PTSD. You will be paying for the cases we have for six or seven decades as it is.

Then again, the scientists are starting to figure out the traumatic brain injury question. They had started putting sensors on troops’ helmets, and enough post combat brain scans might have settled the matter statistically. Which would be a boon for the future on and off the battlefield. But what do you do when your risk analysis shows that five close calls with accompanying concussion is all you can afford an Infantryman to take? That could be reached in a matter of months. Less for EOD techs. You could rotate a lot of combat support troops into the duty, and tap out all your Reservists, and start in on cross training Navy and Air Force guys. But this would only take you so far without having to revert to the Draft. Or just bury the statistics in the need to meet mission. That is hardly without precedent.

WWP, unless my history and memory are badly mistaken, Ronald Reagan’s only involvement in the Middle East was putting some Marines in Lebanon (promptly withdrawn after an attack), and some air raids over Libya.

Yes, M_Young, you’re mistaken. (I know, it’s probably the first time ever, right? ) Reagan sold fighter planes to Saudi Arabia over Israel’s objections; his CIA armed and helped orchestrate the Afghan mujahadeen resistance (thus launching the career of one Osasma bin Laden); he intervened in various ways in the Iran-Iraq war (Google “tanker war” for some info on this), and, of course, the pièce de résistance, he conducted a covert, privately financed foreign policy that included trading arms for hostages with Iran and its terrorist clients.

The fact is that every presidency, for decades, has been intensively involved in the Middle East every single day.

AnotherBeliever-the force the pentagon wanted was sustainable-16000 was the floor initially- but the administration wanted a much, much smaller force. The force would not be situated in cities, hence less vulnerable to attack by militants. The iraqi’s did not want a small force as it would not deter their neighbors, yet it would still entail the PR problems of having the US there. Many believe the small number was chosen on purpose to be unacceptable to the iraqi’s so we could walk away. Gordon’s book clearly outlines that the small force option was not made by anyone actively involved in the military aspects of the occupation.

You’re right on almost every point, AnotherBeliever, but the logic by which ISIS captured a good swathe of the Sunni heartland reverses when you apply to the Shia heartland. People will not fight for a government they consider hostile, but will fight against an armed force hostile to themselves. It will be a bloody mess, and we shouldn’t get in the middle of it, but ISIS won’t keep rolling to Basra, its hostile territory.

DG: the Crusades do say something about what is INHERENT in a faith, no matter how many centuries ago it was. Traditionalists want to cite 20 centuries of unbroken continuity, then write off the Crusades and the Inquisition because that was several centuries ago and doesn’t really count. Right now Christianity isn’t engaged in military slaughter on any large scale, its the Muslims and Buddhists turn to do that. But Christianity doesn’t have clean hands.

“If the worst happens, and Republicans start braying about how Obama “lost” Iraq, remember that it was a war started by a Republican president, and that Obama was left behind to clean up the mess.”

But there wasn’t really any mess in Iraq when Obama took over. Whether fair or not, Republicans might argue that Obama has mangled the ending of the war by not insisting on a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Maliki (I understand Maliki was strong opposed to a SOFA, but Obama could’ve insisted).

So, yes, this was a war Republicans started (with support from Democrats), but it’s a war that Obama and his administration have badly mangled.

Republicans might argue that Obama has mangled the ending of the war by not insisting on a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Maliki (I understand Maliki was strong opposed to a SOFA, but Obama could’ve insisted).

Republicans could argue that, but not with any credibility. When Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, Iraq had a sovereign government we had recognized as sovereign, it was led by a sectarian Shia party that was deliberately snubbing the Sunni population we had worked so hard to build alliances with, and short of imposed “regime change” there was nothing we could do about it. The only question was whether to allow Maliki to lead us around by the nose, and President Obama properly declined to write him the kind of blank check we have too often written for Israel.